Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV09338, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

On January 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Keck Medical Center of USC. Defendant served discovery requests, including requests for admission to Plaintiff, and filed motions to compel responses on March 21, 2024. On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel, Marielys Acosta, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. On March 21, 2024, the court granted Acosta’s relief as counsel and also deemed Defendant’s RFAs admitted. Plaintiff, now appearing pro per, moves the court for relief from the admission.

A party may withdraw or amend an admission made in response to a request for admission only on leave of court granted after notice to all parties. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300, subd. (a).) The court may permit the withdrawal only if it determines the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.300, subd. (b).) The “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” under CCP § 2033.300 have similar meanings as those words used in CCP § 473(b). (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1419.)

“Because the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 2033.300 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. Accordingly, the court's discretion to deny a motion under the statute is limited to circumstances where it is clear that the mistake, inadvertence, or¿neglect was inexcusable, or where it is clear that the withdrawal or amendment would not substantially prejudice the party who obtained the admission in maintaining that party's action or defense on the merits.” (New Albertsons, Inc., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at 1420–21.)

Plaintiff moves for relief under the incorrect CCP section. The applicable section is 2033.230, not CCP 473, though both sections provide relief for mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, which the court will consider. It is unclear from Plaintiff’s motion what the specific mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect is. Plaintiff alleges various failures by her attorney that purportedly harmed her case, such as not filing timely discovery responses or collaborating with Plaintiff on the discovery responses. Additionally, Plaintiff accuses her attorney of lying to the court in the motion to be relieved as counsel. The court is still unsure what the exact mistake or inadvertence was that led to the RFAs being deemed admitted against Plaintiff. Plaintiff seems to be arguing that this was due to her attorney's alleged incompetence or deliberate refusal to cooperate. However, these do not constitute a mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect as required for relief under 2033.230.[1] Thus, the motion is denied.

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.

[1] Plaintiff may have some other means of remedy for the alleged conduct of her former counsel, including, for instance a malpractice claim, but the relief requested here is not a remedy based on the facts presented.